OSNews

I'm no fan of "sudo" either. But at least it makes you THINK for a second about what you're doing, since it requires you to at least type *something*. Unfortunately it's the user's own password (how very difficult to guess...). A separate password--the root password--would be a better safeguard. I prefer logging in as root myself when needed, and that's what I do; I'm not a fan of the method Ubuntu popularized, even if sudo does supposedly grant you fewer rights than root.

By comparison, what was Windows typically do?

"Do you want to allow this program to do this? Yes/No, OK/Cancel, whatever"

Microsoft has already trained its users/customers to "just click OK or Yes" if you want to do something without errors, and magically it works with no trouble. Extending this bad train of thought to granting administrative privileges is defeating the whole damn purpose of separating administrator from limited users, and just plain dumb on Microsoft's part. This bad and potentially disastrous behavior is deeply ingrained deep in Microsoft's users' skulls, and that behavior is exactly what Microsoft is relying on to escalate a Windows user to administrative privileges. Making it annoying just to force application developers into coding user separation is just that: an annoyance that, because of the way it's implemented, doesn't solve a damn thing. Just a worthless annoyance that might catch a somewhat more more experienced user, but those are the people who are likely to have minimal trouble anyway.

And don't even waste your time mentioning that "it's only that way for users designated as administrators--limited users have to type in a password." Last I checked, the first account is an administrator by default (and has to be, because Microsoft disables the "real" Administrator account by default), and NO ONE I have ever seen runs as a limited user--let alone knows what an "administrator" even is.

UAC is a joke.

But enough about that... this discussion is getting way off topic. I don't really give a rat's ass in the end because I am not a Windows user, but I do still get annoyed seeing the latest Windows operating systems royally infected even six years after I jumped ship, after Microsoft continually claims "the most secure version of Windows ever" with every release they put out to date. It'd be nice if Microsoft would provide a *real* fix, but I won't hold my breath on it. And without locking every other OS but their own out. [*cough* hardware-forced "Secure Boot" and the supposed "Trusted Computing" nonsense *cough*]

Edited 2012-08-29 08:47 UTC